MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130685946 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-15-0232.1

The Case-to-Case Variability of the Predictability of Precipitation by a Storm-Scale Ensemble Forecasting System

2015· article· en· W2130685946 on OpenAlexafffund
Madalina Surcel, Isztar Zawadzki, M. K. Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPredictabilityClimatologyForcing (mathematics)PrecipitationQuantitative precipitation forecastData assimilationEnvironmental scienceForecast skillRadarMeteorologyStormEnsemble forecastingComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper analyzes the case-to-case variability of the predictability of precipitation by a storm-scale ensemble forecasting (SSEF) system. Relationships are sought between ensemble spread and quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF) skill, and the characteristics of an event, such as the strength of the quasigeostrophic forcing for ascent, the presence of convective equilibrium, and the spatial extent of the precipitation system. It is found that most of the case-to-case variability of predictability is explained by the spatial coverage of the system. The relationship between convection and large-scale forcing seems to affect predictability mostly during the afternoon hours. While the relationships are weak for the entire dataset, two distinct types of cases are identified: widespread and diurnally forced cases. The loss of predictability at small scales, the effect of the radar data assimilation, and the comparison between forecasts from the SSEF and Lagrangian persistence forecasts are analyzed separately for these two types of cases. Despite overall predictability being better than average for the widespread cases, the loss of predictability with forecast time and spatial scale is just as rapid as for the other cases. For the diurnally forced cases, the radar data assimilation causes larger differences between the precipitation fields corresponding to the assimilating and nonassimilating members than for the widespread cases. However, the effect of radar data assimilation on QPF skill is similar for both types of cases. Also, for the diurnal cases, the models with radar data assimilation outperform very rapidly (after 2 h) the Lagrangian persistence forecasts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207